Managers-Net

Short Interval Scheduling - SIS

Short Interval Scheduling must be one of the most widely used, most
controversial, least promoted, least understood management techniques of
the past century.

It has aroused more wrath from Unions than Bedaux or Taylor, Management
who have used it either love it or hate it.

Despite this it has endured for more than fifty years. It has probably
saved more money for more organisations for less cost than any other single
management technique.

So why no books, no BSI definition, no articles, no seminars, nobody
proclaiming the wonders of this successful methodology?

Simple - its a secret.

Its originator Alexander Proudfoot decreed that it should be so. Why
give the client the idea that he could do it for himself. Why let the competition
think they could do it too.

The result is that every SIS practitioner has been Proudfoot trained.
All companies practising the technique or its derivatives have been set
up and trained by Proudfoot people. Clients have a vested interest in keeping
quiet to conceal their new found competitive advantage.

The essence of the process is to identify in bottleneck scenarios, the
staff most able to throughput the most work in short term batches of approximately
twenty-(20) minutes duration. As soon as each batch is completed a further
batch is undertaken with a controller (usually a Proudfoot Consultant)
appointed for ensuring that all staff are accommodated with work within
this tightly controlled regime. As soon as order is restored, batches move
to a one hour duration.

Nothing and no one is sacrosanct. Over the years the principles have
been adapted to handle research scientists, doctors, designers, bank vice
presidents, stock brokers, actuaries, university professors, al yielding
the same pattern of productivity improved results.

So why does it work?

The consistency of the results implies that in any organisation people
are working at about 20% of their potential capacity. The difference between
an efficient organisation and an inefficient one is about plus or minus
5% net.

Indeed the more efficient the organisation to start with the greater
and sooner the benefits.

The average breakdown is as follows:

10% visible time lost in socialising, going to the loo, smoking etc;

30% invisible lost time in unconscious self-pacing, general internal
noise so intermingled in small increments with other work as to be not
normally noticeable to the worker him or herself or the casual observer.
Loss of pace due to boredom or excessive stress;

30% time spent on noise created by the organisation and the system.
Interruptions, delays, queries, putting right things that have gone wrong.
All of which has been going on for so long it is the accepted part of the
day;

10% work that could be eliminated from the key work by doing it in a
better thought-out method;

20% doing what you should be doing the right way at an optimum comfortable
pace that can be maintained without fatigue or stress with absolute concentration
and precision.

When it is considered that the ultimate cost of every artefact we use
in the civilised world is the product of someone’s labour then we are paying
five times as much as we should do.

Its amazing also how difficult it is to be able to keep a small group
of people continuously occupied with useful and productive work. It does
require a continuous process of thinking ahead for each group member by the group leader.